Cycling Improvements
Strategies to Make Cycling Convenient, Safe and Pleasant
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated 25 January 2010
This chapter describes ways of improving cycling conditions and encouraging cycling activity.
Description
There are many specific ways to improve bicycle transportation (ADONIS, 1998; Litman, et al., 2000). These include:
· Improved paths and bikelanes.
· Correcting specific roadway hazards (potholes, cracks, narrow lanes, etc.).
· Improved road, road shoulder and path Management and Maintenance.
· Improved Bike Parking.
· Develop a more Connected street network and clustered development (New Urbanism).
· Establish Public Bike Systems that provide convenient rental bicycles for short utilitarian trips.
· Traffic Calming, Speed Reductions, Vehicle Restrictions, and Road Space Reallocation.
· Safety education, law enforcement and encouragement programs.
· Integration with transit (Bike/Transit Integration and Transit Oriented Development).
· Create a Multi-Modal Access Guide, which includes maps and other information on how to cycle to a particular destination.
· Provide Public Bike Systems and bicycle rental services.
· Address Security Concerns of cyclists.
Cyclists use various facilities, as summarized in Table 1. Improving these facilities tends to improving cycling conditions and increase cycling activity. A significant amount of cycling occurs on roads, highway shoulders and sidewalks that have no special designation or design features for cycling. It is therefore important to design, maintain and manage all of these facilities to accommodate cycling. For example, as much as possible roadways should have minimal potholes and cracks that can catch a bicycle tire, particularly along the right lane, and shoulders should be paved and maintained in good condition. Bike lanes without curb automobile parking appears to be the most effective facility type to encourage urban cycling (Torrance 2009).
Table 1 Types of Bicycle Facilities
|
Type |
Description |
|
Paths and trails (Type I) |
Various types of paths and trails separated from roadways. These can be built along highways and railroad rights of way, through parks, and other locations where a linear corridor exists. |
|
Bike lanes (Type II) |
Special road lanes for use by cyclists. In some cases this involves removing curb parking, which tends to increase cyclist comfort and safety. |
|
Bike routes (Type III) |
Roadways designated as being extra suitable for cycling. |
|
Bicycle boulevards |
City streets selected for and designed with features to facilitate cycling and discourage excess motor vehicle traffic speeds and volumes. |
|
Bike Rapid Transit Systems |
Enclosed and grade-separated bike paths (Sung, Park and Kim 2009) |
|
Designated shared streets |
Roadways (particularly city streets) with markings to indicate that cyclists should ride in the traffic lane. |
|
General roadways |
A significant amount of cycling occurs on roadways that have no special designation or design features. |
|
Highway shoulders |
Highway shoulders, both paved and unpaved, are often used for cycling. |
|
Sidewalks |
Sidewalks are used by some cyclists, particularly by children and inexperienced adults, and along busy roadways that lack provisions for cycling. |
|
These include bike racks, storage lockers, and shower/changing facilities. |
This table describes various types of cycling facilities.
Figure 1 & 2 Bike Lane Installation
|
|
|
|
Before bikelane. (Photo curtsey of John Luton) |
After bikelane. |
How it is Implemented
Cycling improvements are usually implemented by local governments, sometimes with funding and technical support of regional or state/provincial transportation agencies. It usually begins with Nonmotorized Planning to identify problems and prioritize projects. Implementation may require special funds, either shifting funds within existing transportation, a new budget allocation, or grants.
|
Cycling Facility Design Guides
CROW (2007), Design Manual For Bicycle Traffic, National Information and Technology Platform for Transport, Infrastructure and Public Space (www.crow.nl); at www.crow.nl/shop/productDetail.aspx?id=889&category=90.
DfT (2002), Inclusive Mobility A guide to Best Practise on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure, UK Department For Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/walking/inclusivemobilityaguidetobes4137.
DfT (2004), Policy, Planning and Design for Walking and Cycling – Local Transport Note 1/04, UK Department For Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/ltn104policyplanninganddesig1691.
DfT (2004), Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists – Local Transport, UK Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/ltn204adjacentandsharedusefa1692.
SE (1999), Cycling by Design, Scottish Executive (www.scottishexecutive.gov.uk); at www.scottishexecutive.gov.uk/library2/cbd/cbd-00.asp.
TA (2005), “The Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian Routes,” Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Highways Agency (www.standardsforhighways.co.uk); at www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol6/section3/ta9005.pdf.
TfL (2005), London Cycling Design Standards – A Guide To The Design Of A Better Cycling, Transport for London (www.tfl.gov.uk); at www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/publications/2766.aspx. |
Travel Impacts
Bicycling can substitute directly for automobile trips. Communities that improve cycling conditions often experience significant increases in bicycle travel and related reductions in vehicle travel (PBQD, 2000). Each mile of bikeway per 100,000 residents increases bicycle commuting 0.075 percent, all else being equal (Nelson and Allen, 1997). Dill and Carr (2003) find that for U.S. cities with more than 250,000 population, each additional mile of bike lanes per square mile is associated with a roughly one percentage point increase in bicycle commute mode share. Rietveld and Daniel (2004) find that bicycle transportation increases in cities where cycling is relatively easier (fewer hindrances along cycling routes) and safer, and as cycling is faster and cheaper relative to automobile travel. Topp (2008) argues that an system of integrated cycling facilities and rental services, high quality public transportation and carsharing can significantly reduce automobile travel, particularly for shorter urban trips.
Although only about 1% of total U.S. trips are made by bicycle, several North American communities (Palo Alto, Madison, Boulder, Eugene) have cycling rates five to ten times higher due to supportive public policies (Comsis, 1993). International studies also find significant differences in non-motorized travel patterns, as illustrated in the table below. High levels of cycling in such diverse communities, and lower levels in otherwise similar areas, indicate that transport policies and community attitudes are more important than geography or climate in determining bicycle use.
Table 2 Mode Split in Urban Areas (Pucher and Lefevre, 1996)
|
|
Car |
Transit |
Cycling |
Walking |
Other |
|
Austria |
39% |
13% |
9% |
31% |
8% |
|
Canada |
74% |
14% |
1% |
10% |
1% |
|
Denmark |
42% |
14% |
20% |
21% |
3% |
|
France |
54% |
12% |
4% |
30% |
0% |
|
Germany |
52% |
11% |
10% |
27% |
0% |
|
Netherlands |
44% |
8% |
27% |
19% |
1% |
|
Sweden |
36% |
11% |
10% |
39% |
4% |
|
Switzerland |
38% |
20% |
10% |
29% |
3% |
|
UK |
62% |
14% |
8% |
12% |
4% |
|
USA |
84% |
3% |
1% |
9% |
2% |
The amount of walking and cycling varies significantly from one city to another.
Many communities have significant latent demand for bicycle transport. That is, people would bicycle more frequently if they had suitable facilities and resources (Komanoff and Roelofs, 1993). A U.S. survey found that 17% of adults claim they would sometimes bicycle commute if secure storage and changing facilities were available, 18% would if employers offered financial incentives, and 20% would if they had safer cycling facilities (Bicycling, 1991). The table below summarizes a Canadian public survey indicating high levels of interest in cycling and walking.
Table 3 Active Transportation Survey Findings (Environics, 1998)
|
|
Cycle |
Walk |
|
Currently use this mode for leisure and recreation. |
48% |
85% |
|
Currently use this mode for transportation. |
24% |
58% |
|
Would like to use this mode more frequently. |
66% |
80% |
|
Would cycle to work if there “were a dedicated bike lane which would take me to my workplace in less than 30 minutes at a comfortable pace.” |
70% |
NA |
|
Support for additional government spending on bicycling facilities. |
82% |
NA |
Some studies conclude that cycling improvements have little impact on overall vehicle travel (Comsis, 1993; Apogee, 1994), but other studies indicate much higher potential mode shifts (Hillman 1998; ADONIS 1999; TravelSmart; Pucher, Dill and Handy 2010). Potential travel impacts are greater if cycling is Integrated with Transit, and with Smart Growth development practices that reduce travel requirements, for example, by locating schools and shops within residential neighborhoods.
Travel surveys and traffic counts usually under-record nonmotorized trips, because they ignore or undercount short trips, non-work travel, travel by children, recreational travel, and nonmotorized links (BTS, 2000). For example, a “bike-bus-bike” trip is often classified as “transit”, even if more distance is traveled by cycling. One study found that the actual number of nonmotorized trips is six times greater than what conventional surveys indicate (Rietveld, 2000). In 2000, the Southern California Metropolitan Transportation Authority increased the portion of nonmotorized travel in their models from about 2% of regional trips (based on conventional travel surveys) up to about 10% (based on more comprehensive travel data from the 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey).
In recent years several evaluation tools have been developed to predict demand for cycling, evaluate cycling conditions and predict the effects of cycling improvements (Evaluating Nonmotorized Transport).
Table 4 Travel Impact Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
2 |
|
|
Reduces peak period traffic. |
2 |
|
|
Shifts peak to off-peak periods. |
0 |
|
|
Shifts automobile travel to alternative modes. |
3 |
|
|
Improves access, reduces the need for travel. |
1 |
Supports higher-density, mixed land use. |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
0 |
|
|
Increased public transit. |
2 |
Bicycle access affects public transit use. |
|
Increased cycling. |
3 |
|
|
Increased walking. |
3 |
|
|
Increased Telework. |
0 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
0 |
|
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Benefits And Costs
Cycling can provide a number of benefits and costs, as discussed below (for more information see the Bicyclepedia at www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost, Litman, 2005; CPF 2008).
Mobility Benefits (Evaluating Transportation Choice)
Improved cycling conditions increase travel choice and mobility, which particularly benefits non-drivers. Cycling is often one of the most Affordable transportation options. People who are transportation disadvantaged often rely heavily on nonmotorized transportation, for trips made entirely by cycling and to access transit. Bicycle transportation can help provide Basic Mobility.
TDM Benefits
Shifts from driving to nonmotorized modes can congestion reduction, road and parking facility savings, consumer savings, environmental protection and increase community livability (Litman, 2005; Buis, 2000). Nonmotorized transportation supports other alternative modes (public transit and ridesharing), and Smart Growth land use objectives, including higher density, mixed-use development to increase access, and reduce per capita pavement.
Safety and Health Impacts
Cycling has a relatively high casualty rate per mile of travel, but this is offset by reduced risk to other road users, and by the fact that cyclists tend to travel less overall than motorists. International research indicates that as cycling activity increase in a community, per capita traffic accident rates decline (Jacobsen 2003). This appears to reflect a combination of factors: cyclists impose less risk on other road users, total vehicle travel tends to decline, motorists become more considerate and cautious, and communities may invest more in facility improvements and cycling education. For example, the Netherlands has a high level of nonmotorized transport, yet the overall traffic death rate per capita, and the death rate of cyclists per million km ridden, is much lower than in automobile dependent countries (Pucher and Dijkstra, 2000). Bicyclist fatalities are only a quarter as high as in the United States, due to greater safety efforts.
Cycling can provide significant aerobic fitness health benefits, which more than offsets the increased crash risk (Roberts, et al., 1996; Frank and Engelke, 2000). Danish bicycle commuters have a 40% reduction in mortality compared with people who do not cycle to work, which suggests that the incremental risks of bicycle transportation are far outweighed by health benefits, at least for experienced adult cyclists riding in a bicycle-friendly community (Andersen, et al, 2000). Cyclists also tend to have great looking legs.
Economic Development Benefits
To the degree that cycling improvements improve Community Livability and reduce automobile costs, they can increase property values and improve Economic Development. In a survey of business owners in an urban retail district, Drennen (2003) found that 65% consider arterial bike lanes to provide overall economic development benefits, compared with 4% that consider it overall negative, and 65% support expansion of the program in their area.
Recreation Benefits
Many people enjoy cycling and the healthy exercise it provides. Some people argue that transportation funding should not be spent on recreational activities, such as walking and cycling facilities, yet a significant portion of motor vehicle travel is for recreation. It makes no sense to refuse funding for a path or bikelane, yet fund roadway capacity so motorists can drive to a healthclub where they pedal a stationary bike. This suggests that both transportation and recreational funding can be devoted to cycling improvements.
Costs
Costs are generally associated with program expenses and facility improvements. A typical bike lane costs $52,000 per mile, or 30¢ per 2.1 mile trip bicycle trip if used by 80 cyclists a day, while a typical new sidewalk is estimated to cost 12¢ per trip (Comsis, 1993). High-quality bike racks and lockers typically cost $100-500 per bike. Some nonmotorized transportation improvements, such as traffic calming, may reduce motor vehicle traffic speeds.
Table 5 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
2 |
Reduces automobile use. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
3 |
Reduces automobile use. |
|
Consumer Savings |
3 |
Provides affordable mobility. |
|
Transport Choice |
3 |
Increases travel choices. |
|
Road Safety |
3 |
Reduces automobile use and provides health benefits. |
|
Environmental Impacts |
3 |
Reduces automobile use, particularly high-polluting short trips. |
|
Land Use Impacts |
3 |
Supports higher-density development. |
|
Community Livability |
3 |
Reduces motor vehicle traffic and increases local access. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Equity Impacts
Since nearly everybody walks, and many people cycle, nonmotorized transportation improvements can benefit nearly everybody, although some people benefit more than others from a particular policy or project.
Improving conditions for nonmotorized travel often require public resources (money and land devoted to sidewalks, paths and bikelanes), the public cost per trip is usually less than that of automobile travel (money and land devoted to roads and parking facilities), so such improvements can be considered to increase horizontal equity.
Litman (1998) describes how people who drive less than average overpay their share of local transportation expenditures, since their local taxes fund roadway expenses that are primarily needed for the sake of automobile traffic, so increased funding for nonmotorized transportation is often justified for the sake of horizontal equity. Lower-income and transportation disadvantaged people often rely heavily on nonmotorized transportation, and so benefit significantly by nonmotorized improvements. Cycling can help provide Basic Mobility.
Table 6 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
1 |
Can be used by a portion of the population. |
|
Individuals bear the costs they impose. |
2 |
Requires public resources, but usually less than costs for automobile trips. |
|
Progressive with respect to income. |
2 |
Some lower-income people rely on cycling. |
|
Benefits transportation disadvantaged. |
2 |
Some transportation disadvantaged people rely on cycling. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
2 |
Can help provide basic mobility. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Applications
Nonmotorized transportation improvements are particularly important in areas with high levels of walking and cycling, higher-density commercial and residential areas, and resort areas. Universal Design improvements are particularly important in areas where people with disabilities frequently travel. Nonmotorized improvements are provided primarily by regional and local governments, sometimes with federal and state/provincial support. Businesses can provide sidewalks, bicycle parking, and shower facilities.
Table 7 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
3 |
Federal government. |
1 |
|
High-density, urban. |
3 |
State/provincial government. |
2 |
|
Medium-density, urban/suburban. |
3 |
Regional government. |
2 |
|
Town. |
3 |
Municipal/local government. |
3 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
2 |
Business Associations/TMA. |
3 |
|
Commercial center. |
3 |
Individual business. |
2 |
|
Residential neighborhood. |
3 |
Developer. |
3 |
|
Resort/recreation area. |
3 |
Neighborhood association. |
3 |
|
|
|
Campus. |
3 |
Ratings range from 0 (not appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
Category
Improves Transport Choice
Relationships With Other TDM Strategies
Nonmotorized Planning is often the first step for Bicycle Improvements. Managing Nonmotorized Facilities, Bicycle Encouragement, Public Bike Systems, Bicycle Parking, Bicycle/Transit Integration, Commute Trip Reduction, Road Space Reallocation and Traffic Calming are ways of improving cycling conditions. New Urbanism, Smart Growth and Transit Oriented Development can help create roadway and land use patterns that are more suitable for bicycle transportation. Least Cost Planning and Institutional Reforms can help increase public investment in bicycle improvements. Address Security Concerns can be an important part of improving cycling conditions.
Stakeholders
Nonmotorized transportation improvements are usually implemented by local or regional governments, sometimes with state or provincial transportation agency support. Some measures, such as sidewalks, paths and bicycle parking facilities, are implemented by businesses and developers.
Barriers To Implementation
Nonmotorized transportation programs are often limited by professional practices and funding that favors motorized modes, and development practices that result in lower-density, single-use land use patterns.
Best Practices
A number of guides and resources including ADONIS (1998) and Winters and Cooper (2008) provide information on best practices for improving nonmotorized travel conditions and encouraging nonmotorized transport. These include:
· Educate all transportation professionals in bicycle planning principles.
· Insure that all roads are suitable for cycling unless it is specifically prohibited and suitable alternatives are available.
· Use current planning practices and design standards.
· Include nonmotorized travel in transportation surveys and models.
· Perform user surveys to identify problems and barriers to bicycle travel.
· Use traffic calming and other traffic control measures to make street environments safer and more pleasant for cycling.
|
“Listen up all miscreants and malefactors. Today we discuss the seven deadly sins as they apply to cycling…” (for the full column see Salvation by Bicycle). |
Examples and Case Studies
Santa Barbara (www.ci.santa-barbara.ca.us/pworks/transp/bike_plan/bmp_toc.html.)
A comprehensive plan for integrating bicycling infrastructure into the city's street network, including on- and off-road facilities, and ancillary facilities such as bicycle parking, signing and other amenities.
Portland, OR (www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=34772)
The City of Portland has developed an extensive bicycling infrastructure including on- and off-street routes, bicycle parking, and other facilities.
Philadelphia, Pa (www.phila.gov/departments/street/html/the_bicycle_network.html)
The City was awarded more than $3 million of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program funds to plan and implement a city-wide bicycle network featuring bike lanes, trails, and bicycle parking facilities.
Tucson, AZ (www.ci.tucson.az.us/transport/planning/overview.html)
With a network of more than 240 miles of bikeway already on the ground, the Tucson Bikeway Improvement Plan identifies more than 50 additional miles of striped bike lanes that will be added to the system by 2001.
Danish Bicycle Improvements (http://www.vd.dk/pdf/cykelrapport/131-162Chapter13.pdf)
The report Collection of Cycle Concepts by the Danish Road Directorate includes a chapter of successful examples of community-based Danish bicycle improvements, including roadway design, paths, bicycle parking, bicycle shopping programs, and promotion campaigns.
New York City, NY (www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dcp/html/bndprods.html#b)
This award-winning plan identifies more than 900 miles of on- and off-street facilities and recommends a series of policies and programs that would promote bicycle use, encourage integration with transit, and link to the City's greenway system. The activist group, Transportation Alternatives, has published their own Bicycle Blueprint for the city (www.transalt.org/blueprint).
Wisconsin Department of Transportation (www.dot.state.wi.us/dtim/bop/finalbike.html)
Adopted in December, 1998, the Wisconsin Bicycle Transportation Plan 2020 provides a blueprint for more and safer bicycle trips with recommendations and roles for a variety of government agencies and groups.
Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany (www.vtpi.org/irresistible.pdf)
The Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany have very high levels of cycling because their public policies made bicycling a safe, convenient, and practical mode of transport. The key to achieving high levels of cycling appears to be the provision of separate cycling facilities along heavily traveled roads and at intersections, combined with traffic calming of most residential neighborhoods. Extensive cycling rights of way in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany are complemented by ample bike parking, full integration with public transport, comprehensive traffic education and training of both cyclists and motorists, and a wide range of promotional events intended to generate enthusiasm and wide public support for cycling. In addition, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany make driving relatively expensive as well as inconvenient in central cities through a host of taxes and restrictions on car ownership, use, and parking. Moreover, strict land use policies foster compact, mixed-use developments that generate shorter and thus more bikeable trips. It is the coordinated implementation of this multifaceted, mutually reinforcing set of policies that best explains the success of these three countries in promoting cycling.
Velib Paris Bicycle Rental (www.velib.paris.fr)
In 2007 the city of Paris launched a new self-service bicycle rental system called Velib. The system provides approximately 20,000 rental bikes available at approximately 1,400 stations located around the city. To access the bikes, riders can purchase a one-day card for 1 euro, a weekly card for 5 euros, or an annual card for 29 euros. For each trip, the first half-hour of use is free, the second half-hour costs 1 euro, at third half hour costs 2 euros, and each addition half-hour after that costs 4 euros. Example: a 25 minute trip = 0 euros, a 50 minute trip = 1 euro, an hour and 15-minute ride = 3 euros. This price structure is designed to encourage frequent use of the bikes for short trips. Each Velib’ parking station is equipped with muni-meters to purchase one and 7-day passes and to pay any additional charges once the bike is dropped off. The Velib’ meters also provides information on other station locations. Paris also has over 371 km (230 miles) of cycling lanes.
Road Diets Include Bike Lanes (Burden and Lagerway, 1999; Rosales, 2007)
Many arterials have been converted from 4- to 3-lane or 4- to 2-lane reductions with bike lanes as part of road diet treatments. The Road Diet Handbook: Setting Trends for Livable Streets (Rosales, 2007) is a comprehensive guide for road diet implementation, including guidelines for identifying and evaluating potential road diet sites, design concepts and practices, and experience from case studies.
European Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety (Pucher and Dijkstra, 2000)
In the United States, pedestrian fatalities are 36 times higher, and bicycling fatalities are 11 times higher, than car occupant fatalities per km traveled. Walking and bicycling can be made quite safe, however, as shown by much lower fatality rates in The Netherlands and Germany. Pedestrian fatalities per billion km walked are less than a tenth as high, and bicyclist fatalities are only a quarter as high, as in the United States. The Netherlands and Germany have long recognized the importance of pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Over the past two decades these countries have undertaken a wide range of measures to improve safety: better facilities for walking and bicycling; urban design sensitive to the needs of non-motorists; traffic calming of residential neighborhoods; restrictions on motor vehicle use in cities; rigorous traffic education of both motorists and non-motorists; and strict enforcement of traffic regulations protecting pedestrians and bicyclists. The United States could adopt many of the same measures to improve pedestrian and bicycling safety here. The necessary technology and methods are already available, with decades of successful experience in Europe.
Internet-Based Bicycle Route Guidance System (www.msrc-cleanair.org)
Project Is Part of MSRC Effort To Take Cars Off The Road
Diamond Bar, CA., - There are several reasons why more people don’t ride their bikes to work – 1) they’re fearful of busy intersections and riding on main boulevards, 2) it’s inconvenient, takes too much time and there are no shower accommodations and 3) bicyclists often have a difficult time figuring out exactly how to get from point A to point B on their bike.
In an effort to eliminate some of these obstacles, the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC), a government group who funds transportation-related clean air projects, has earmarked $400,000 to fund an interactive, internet-based bicycle route and map system. The system will provide real-time bike route information based on point of origin and destination markers, as well as identify bike facilities and accommodations such as drinking fountains and restrooms along the way. Once a user inputs their origin and destination, the system will provide directions in a turn-by-turn format. If there is no designated bike path, the system will suggest a route based on considerations including traffic volume, posted speed limits and avoiding steep grades. Bike routes for the entire South Coast Basin covering Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside County will be included.
Although there are a number of traditional, hard copy bike maps available, they often cover smaller regions and the maps are sometimes incomplete, according to MSRC Chairman and Palm Springs Mayor William Kleindienst.
“We know that one of the obstacles for commuting bicyclists is not having complete map and road directions,” he said. “A real-time system with up-to-the-minute road conditions will provide bikers with a high level of confidence that they can travel safely from home to work and back. And, every time we take a car off the road we’re cutting pollution.”
Bike enthusiasts including the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, a membership based advocacy organization, say an online bike map system will help stimulate bike ridership. “Both experienced and novice cyclists will find great use in an internet-based bicycle routing system,” said Ron Milam, executive director, LACBC.
Vitoria-Gasteiz Bike Programs (www.vitoria-gasteiz.org/we027/http/html/en/0210.shtml)
The city of Vitoria-Gasteiz promotes bicycle transportation in many ways. The city has several kilometres of bicycle routes and new sections are being added on a continuous basis. The city offers a free bicycle lending service, including a "Park and pedal" programme, which offers the free use of bicycles in city parks.
Copenhagen Free Bike Program (www.cios.com)
In 1995, the Free City-Bike Program was implemented by the City of Copenhagen. One thousand specially designed free City-Bikes were stationed at 120 stands around the City at train and subway stations, parking lots and large housing blocks. The bikes were also stationed around common final destinations, such as office buildings, shopping districts, parks and other tourist attractions. For a deposit of only 20 Dkr. (US$3), anyone can take a bike and cycle wherever they want, within downtown (restricted area). When the bike is returned to any bike stand within the area, the user gets their deposit back.
With the cooperation of sponsors, the project went so well that 500 more bikes were added when Copenhagen was named the "European Culture City" in 1996. The number of bikes increased by 300 in 1997 and 300 in 1998 for a total of more than 2,000 bikes. 38% of users are tourists.
References And Resources For More Information
ADONIS (1999), Best Practice to Promote Cycling and Walking and How to Substitute Short Car Trips by Cycling and Walking, ADONIS Transport RTD Program, European Union (www.cordis.lu/transport/src/adonisrep.htm). This 300-page catalogue describes dozens of strategies to help improve and encourage walking and cycling, ranging from special facilities, to safety campaigns and traffic management to facilitate street crossing.
Alta Planning (2003), San Francisco Bicycle Program Supplemental Design Guidelines, San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) (www.altaplanning.com). This reflects current best practices in bicycle facility design.
Alta Planning + Design (2005), Caltrans Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Technical Reference Guide: A Technical Reference and Technology Transfer Synthesis for Caltrans Planners and Engineers, California Department of Transportation (www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/pedestrian/TR_MAY0405.pdf).
Lars Bo Andersen, et al (2000), “All-Cause Mortality Associated With Physical Activity During Leisure Time, Work, Sports and Cycling to Work,” Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 160, No. 11 (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/issues/v160n11/full/ioi90593.html), June 12, 2000, pp. 1621-1628.
APBP (2002), Bicycle Parking Guidelines, Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (www.apbp.org), Bicycle Information Center (www.apbp.org/resource/resmgr/publications/bicycle_parking_guidelines.pdf).
Apogee (1994), Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Transportation Control Measures; A Review and Analysis of the Literature, National Association of Regional Councils (www.narc.org).
David Bassett, John Pucher, Ralph Buehler, Dixie L. Thompson, and Scott E. Crouter (2008), “Walking, Cycling, and Obesity Rates in Europe, North America, and Australia,” Journal of Physical Activity and Health, Vol. 5 (www.humankinetics.com/jpah/journalAbout.cfm), pp. 795-814; at http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/JPAH08.pdf.
Timothy Beatley (2000), Green Urbanism; Learning from European Cities, Island Press (www.islandpress.com).
BIC (2002), The Bicycle Matrix: Crash Type Definition and Countermeasures, Bicycle Information Center (www.bicyclinginfo.org/matrix/index.htm).
Bicyclepedia (www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost) is a bicycle facility benefit/cost analysis tool available free on the Internet.
Bicycle Policy Audit (www.bypad.org) is a European Union research project to develop guidance for optimizing municipal and regional cycling policies.
Bike Metro (www.bikemetro.com) identifies recommended bicycle routes from any two addresses in Southern California. It provides specific directions and an elevation profile, based on users’ individual tolerance for hills and traffic. It also calculates the cost of the trip by automobile and the savings cycling, and calories consumed.
Bikesharing Program Blog (http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com).
BTA (2005), Blueprint for Better Biking: 40 Ways to Get There: Plan to Ensure Portland is America’s Bicycling Hub, Bicycle Transportation Alliance (www.bta4bikes.org).
BTS, Pedestrian and Cycling Publications, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, USDOT, (http://www.bts.gov/NTL/subjects/ped-bike.html).
Bicycle Information Center (www.bicyclinginfo.org) provides information on nonmotorized transport planning and programs.
Bicycle Federation of America (www.bikefed.org) provides extensive resources for bicycle and pedestrian planning.
Bicycling (1991) “A Trend On the Move: Commuting by Bicycle” Bicycling Magazine, Rodale Press.
Lester R. Brown and Janet Larsen (2002), World Turning To Bicycle For Mobility And Exercise, Earth Policy Institute (www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update13.htm).
Jeroen Buis (2002), The Economic Significance of Cycling; A Study to Illustrate the Costs and Benefits of Cycling Policy, VNG uitgeverij (www.vnguitgeverij.nl) and I-ce (www.cycling.nl).
Sally Cairns, et al (2004), Smarter Choices - Changing the Way We Travel, UK Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/archive/00001224/01/1224.pdf.
ClearChannel (2007), Smart Bike Information Document, Clear Channel Smart Bikes (www.smartbike.com).
Community Bicycle Network (CBN) Factsheets, newsletter, curriculum guides, and action manuals, Detour Publications (www.detourpublications.com).
Complete Streets (www.completestreets.org) is a campaign to promote roadway designs that effectively accommodate multiple modes and support local planning objectives.
Comsis Corporation (1993), Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory of Measures and Synthesis of Experience, USDOT and Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org).
CPF (2008), Economic Benefits of Cycling for Australia, Cycling Promotion Fund (www.cyclingpromotion.com.au); at www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/images/stories/downloads/CPF_CyclingBenefits.pdf.
CROW (2007), Design Manual For Bicycle Traffic, National Information and Technology Platform for Transport, Infrastructure and Public Space (www.crow.nl); at www.crow.nl/shop/productDetail.aspx?id=889&category=90.
CTR (2001), Recreational Trails Program: Report On State Trail Projects, Coalition for Recreational Trails (CRT) and Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sttrail.htm). Includes a database with statistics on public trails throughout the U.S.
CyclingAdvocacy.com (http://cyclingadvocacy.com) is a website dedicated to supporting cycling advocacy with comprehensive information resources.
Allison L. C. de Cerreño and My Linh H. Nguyen-Novotny (2006), Pedestrian and Bicyclist Standards and Innovations in Large Central Cities, Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management (www.wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter); at http://wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter/files/bikeped.pdf.
DETR (2000), Cycling Bibliography and Walking Bibliography, Department of Environment, Transport and Regions, (www.roads.detr.gov.uk/roadnetwork/ditm/tal/index.htm).
DFT (various years), Traffic Advisory Leaflets: Cycle Facilities, Department for Transport (www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadnetwork/ditm/tal/cycle/index.htm). Various information resources related to cycling promotion and planning.
DfT (2002), Inclusive Mobility A guide to Best Practise on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure, UK Department For Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/walking/inclusivemobilityaguidetobes4137.
DfT (2004), Policy, Planning and Design for Walking and Cycling – Local Transport Note 1/04, UK Department For Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/ltn104policyplanninganddesig1691.
DfT (2004), Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists – Local Transport, UK Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/ltn204adjacentandsharedusefa1692.
Jennifer Dill and Theresa Carr (2003), “Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities,” Transportation Research Record 1828, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 116-123; at www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/handy/ESP178/Dill_bike_facilities.pdf.
Linda Dixon (1996), “Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems,” Transportation Research Record 1538, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 1-9.
DRD (2000), Collection of Cycle Concepts, Danish Road Directorate (www.vd.dk/wimpdoc.asp?page=document&objno=17291). This comprehensive guidebook provides information on how to increase the use of bicycles and prevent bicycle accidents, including chapters on roadway design and maintenance, bicycle parking, promotion, safety programs and case studies.
Emily Drennen (2003), Economic Effects of Traffic Calming on Urban Small Businesses, Masters Thesis, San Francisco State University (www.emilydrennen.org).
EC (1999), Cycling: The Way Ahead for Towns and Cities, European Commission (http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/cycling/cycling_es.pdf).
Environics (1998), National Survey on Active Transportation, Go for Green, (www.goforgreen.ca).
Fietsberaad (www.fietsberaad.nl), the Centre of Expertise on Bicycle Policy located in the Netherlands, works to develop, disseminate and exchange practical knowledge and experience for improving and encouraging cycling.
GTZ SUTP and the Interface for Cycling Expertise (2009), Cycling-inclusive Policy Development: A Handbook, Sustainable Urban Transport Project (www.sutp.org); at www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1462&Itemid=1&lang=uk.
HSRC (2000), Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT), Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); available free from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (www.walkinginfo.org).
Lawrence Frank and Peter Engelke (2000), How Land Use and Transportation Systems Impact Public Health, Active Community Environments, Georgia Institute of Technology and Center for Disease Control (Atlanta; www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/aces.htm).
Thomas Gotschi and Kevin Mills (2008), Active Transportation for America: A Case for Increased Federal Investment in Bicycling and Walking, Rail-To-Trails Conservancy (www.railstotrails.org); at www.railstotrails.org/ATFA.
David L. Harkey, et al (1998), The Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, FHWA, FHWA-RD-98-072 (www.hsrc.unc.edu/oldhsrc/research/pedbike/bci/bcitech.pdf).
Dr. Mayer Hillman (1998), Curbing Shorter Car Journeys: Prioritising the Alternatives, Friends of the Earth (www.foe.co.uk).
International Bicycle Fund (www.ibike.org) provides a variety of information and resources to support cycling for transportation and recreation throughout the world.
ITE (1998), Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level, ITE, Federal Highway Administration (www.bikefed.org/local.htm).
Peter L. Jacobsen (2003), “Safety In Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, Safer Walking and Bicycling.” Injury Prevention (http://ip.bmjjournals.com), Vol. 9, 2003, pp. 205-209; at http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/9/3/205.
Michael King (2002), Bicycle Facility Selection Bicycle Facility Selection: A Comparison Of Approaches, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, Highway Safety Research Center, (www.bicyclinginfo.org/pdf/bikeguide.pdf).
Kevin J. Krizek, et al (2006), Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities, Transportation Research Board, NCHRP Report 552 (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_552.pdf.
Todd Litman (2003), “Economic Value of Walkability,” Transportation Research Record 1828, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org) pp. 3-11; at www.vtpi.org/walkability.pdf.
Todd Litman (2004), Whose Roads? Evaluating Bicyclists’ and Pedestrians’ Right to Use Public Roadways, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf.
Todd Litman (2005), Quantifying the Benefits of Non-Motorized Transport for Achieving TDM Objectives, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf; originally published as “Bicycling and Transportation Demand Management,” Transportation Research Record 1441, 1994, pp. 134-140.
Todd Litman, et al. (2000), Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; A Guide to Best Practices, VTPI (www.vtpi.org). Comprehensive guide with extensive references.
Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org) has a variety of useful resources for neighborhood planning and pedestrian/bicycle improvements, including “Designing Safe Streets and Neighborhoods”, “The Economic Benefits of Walkable Communities" and “Why People Don't Walk and What City Planners Can Do About It” fact sheets.
Richard Moeur (2008), “Rolling into the Future: Emerging Resources and New Initiatives for Bicycle Transportation,” ITE Journal, Vol. 78, No. 5 (www.ite.org), pp. 20-23.
Luc Nadal (2007), “Bike Sharing Sweeps Paris Off Its Feet,” Sustainable Transport, No. 19, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (www.itdp.org), Fall 2007, pp. 8-13; at www.itdp.org/documents/st_magazine/ITDP-ST_Magazine-19.pdf.
Theodoros Natsinas, Jonathan Levine and Moira Zellner (2001), Successful Bicycle Planning: Adapting Lessons from Communities with High Bicycle Use to Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County, A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, The University of Michigan, Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition (www.wbwc.org/bikereport.pdf).
Arthur Nelson and David Allen (1997), “If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them; Cross-Sectional Analysis of Commuters and Bicycle Facilities,” Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 79-83.
Fietsberaad (2009), Cycling in the Netherlands, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (www.minvenw.nl) and Fietsberaad (Expertise Centre for Cycling Policy) (www.bicyclecouncil.org); at www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/CyclingintheNetherlands2009.pdf.
Northwestern University Traffic Institute (www.nwu.edu/traffic) offers professional development workshops on bicycle planning and facility design, and other related subjects.
OECD (2004), National Policies to Promote Cycling; Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies – Moving Ahead, European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (www.oecd.org/bookshop).
Oregon DOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning (www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/obpplan.htm) shows nonmotorized planning at its best.
PBIC, Image Library (www.pedbikeimages.org), by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (www.walkinginfo.org) provides an extensive collection of photographs related to walking and cycling.
PBQD (2000), Data Collection and Modeling Requirements for Assessing Transportation Impacts of Micro-Scale Design, Transportation Model Improvement Program, USDOT (www.bts.gov/tmip).
Physical Activity Task Force (1995), More People, More Active, More Often, UK Department of Health (London).
John Pucher (1999), “Bicycling Renaissance in North America: Recent Trends and Alternative Policies to Promote Bicycling,” Transportation Research A, Vol. 33, Nos. 7/8, Sept./Nov. 1999, pp. 625-254; at http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/16057/http:zSzzSzpolicy.rutgers.eduzSzpaperszSz11.pdf/bicycling-renaissance-in-north.pdf.
John Pucher (2007), Cycling for Everyone: Key to Public and Political Support, keynote address at the 2007 National Bike Summit, League of American Bicyclists, Washington, DC, March 16, 2007; at www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/BikeSummit2007COMP_Mar25.pdf.
John Pucher (2007b) “At the Frontiers of Cycling: Policy Innovations in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany,” World Transport Policy & Practice, Vo. 13, No. 3, pp. 8-55; at www.eco-logica.co.uk/pdf/wtpp13.3.pdf
John Pucher and Ralph Buehler (2006), “Why Canadians Cycle More Than Americans: A Comparative Analysis Of Bicycling Trends And Policies,” Transport Policy, Vol. 13, May, 2006, pp. 265–279; at www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/TransportPolicyArticle.pdf.
John Pucher, Jennifer Dill and Susan Handy (2010), “Infrastructure, Programs and Policies To Increase Bicycling: An International Review,” Preventive Medicine, Vol. 48, No. 2, February; prepared for the Active Living By Design Program (www.activelivingbydesign.org); at http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Pucher_Dill_Handy10.pdf.
John Pucher and Ralph Buehler (2008), “Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany,” Transport Reviews, Vol. 28, No. 4, July 2008; at www.vtpi.org/irresistible.pdf.
John Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra (2000), “Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe,” Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3, Summer 2000; at www.vtpi.org.
John Pucher and Christian Lefevre (1996), The Urban Transportation Crisis in Europe and North America, MacMillan Press (London).
John Pucher and Ralph Buelher (2008), “At the Frontiers of Cycling: Policy Innovations in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany,” World Transport Policy & Practice, Vol. 13, No. 3 (www.eco-logica.co.uk); at www.eco-logica.co.uk/pdf/wtpp13.3.pdf.
Piet Rietveld (2000), “Nonmotorized Modes in Transport Systems: A Multimodal Chain Perspective for The Netherlands,” Transportation Research D, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2000, pp. 31-36.
Piet Rietveld and Vanessa Daniel (2004), “Determinants of Bicycle Use: Do Municipal Policies Matter?,” Transportation Research A, Vol. 38, No. 7 (www.elsevier.com/locate/tra), August 2004, pp. 531-550.
Ian Roberts, Harry Owen, Peter Lumb, Colin MacDougall (1996), Pedalling Health—Health Benefits of a Modal Transport Shift, Bicycle Institute of South Australia (www.science.adelaide.edu.au).
Jennifer Rosales (2006), Road Diet Handbook: Setting Trends for Livable Streets, William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Monograph 20, Parsons Brinckerhoff (www.pbworld.com/library/fellowship); summary at www.oregonite.org/2007D6/paper_review/D4_201_Rosales_paper.pdf.
W.L. Schwartz, et al (1999), Guidebook on Methods to Estimate NonMotorized Travel: Overview of Methods. Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (www.tfhrc.org), FHWA-RD-98-165.
SE (1999), Cycling by Design, Scottish Executive (www.scottishexecutive.gov.uk); at www.scottishexecutive.gov.uk/library2/cbd/cbd-00.asp.
Patrick Siegman (2005), On-Street Bike Lanes Preferred Alternative, Nelson/Nygaard, Memorandum to City of Lincoln, Nebraska (www.lincoln.ne.gov/city/plan/dt_plan/mtg/021105/bike1.pdf).
Smart Bike (www.smartbike.com) is a public bicycle rental service designed to accommodate short-distance trips. Users obtain bikes by swiping an electronic card at one of many stations distributed around a city, and may leave the bike at another station. The system is financed by a combination of user fees and advertising revenues.
Spicycles (2009), Cycling On The Rise: Public Bicycles And Other European Experiences, Spicycles Consortium (http://spicycles.velo.info); at http://spicycles.velo.info/Portals/0/Deliverables/SpicyclesFinal_Booklet_small.pdf.
Hyangun Sung, Jihyung Park and Hyeja Kim (2009), “A Study on the Bike Rapid Transit System,” KOTI World-Brief, Vol. 1, No. 1, Korea Transport Institute (www.koti.re.kr), May 2009, pp. 2-5; http://english.koti.re.kr/upload/eng_publication_regular/world-brief01.pdf.
TA (2005), “The Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian Routes,” Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Highways Agency (www.standardsforhighways.co.uk); at www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol6/section3/ta9005.pdf.
TfL (2005), London Cycling Design Standards – A Guide To The Design Of A Better Cycling, Transport for London (www.tfl.gov.uk); at www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/publications/2766.aspx.
Hartmut H. Topp (2008), “Can MeetBike Replace the Car?,” World Transport Policy & Practice (www.eco-logica.co.uk), Volume 14, Number 3, pp. 24-31; at www.eco-logica.co.uk/pdf/wtpp14.3.pdf.
Kristen Torrance, Ipek Sener, Randy Machemehl, Chandra Bhat, Ian Hallett, Naveen Eluru, Ian Hlavacek, and Andrew Karl (2009), The Effects of On-Street Parking on Cyclist Route Choice and the Operational Behavior of Cyclists and Motorists, Center for Transportation Research for the Texas Department of Transportation; at www.utexas.edu/research/ctr/pdf_reports/0_5755_1.pdf.
TravelSmart (www.travelsmart.transport.wa.gov.au) is a successful program for promoting alternative transportation, including cycling.
USEPA(1998), Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs, Transportation and Air Quality TCM Technical Overviews, US Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/oms/transp/publicat/pub_tech.htm).
Velo.Info (www.velo.info) is a web-based information resource to assist cities in introducing measures to support and increase cycle use, funded by the European Commission.
Meghan Winters and Adam Cooper (2008), What Makes a Neighbourhood Bikeable, Cycling In Cities, University of British Columbia (www.cher.ubc.ca/cyclingincities); at www.cher.ubc.ca/cyclingincities/pdf/WhatMakesNeighbourhoodsBikeable.pdf.
Kerry Wood (1999), Bicycle Crashes in New Zealand: Masters Thesis, Viastrada (http://viastrada.co.nz); at http://viastrada.co.nz/pub/wood-thesis.
World Transport Policy & Practice – Special Cycling Issue (www.ecoplan.org/library/wt7-3.pdf) Volume 7, No. 3, Autumn 2001.
This Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#93